Forum Moderators: open
If I was charging people for web design at this time, I would make sure that my clients' pages degraded gracefully in any browser so that they were still functional. I would then offer them various packages on which browsers I would get the page to display "correctly" in. My package system would probably be something like this:
Cheapest Package:
WinIE 5.0+, MacIE 5.0+, Netscape 6.1+, Opera 6.0+, Safari, Konqueror 3.0+, OmniWeb 4.5+
Average Package:
WinIE 4.0+, MacIE 4.5+, Netscape 6.0+, Opera 5.0+, Safari, Konqueror 2.2+, OmniWeb 4.0+, iCab 2.8+
More Expensive Package:
WinIE 4.0+, MacIE 4.0+, Netscape 4.0+, Opera 4.0+, Safari, Konqueror 2.0+, OmniWeb 4.0+, iCab 2.8+, ICEBrowser
Much More Expensive Package:
WinIE 3.0+, MacIE 3.0+, Netscape 3.0+, Opera 3.0+, Safari, Konqueror 2.0+, OmniWeb 4.0+, iCab 2.0+, ICEBrowser
I believe that that would be an effective way to organise the "looks best in" (but still functional in everything), because this way, clients could pay for what they wanted their website to display "correctly" (I can't think of a better word right now) in, although their site would still be functional in everything. If they wanted explicit Netscape 3.0 support, then they could pay for it. It wouldn't be cheap, but it would be an option. Believe it or not, it's perfectly possible to get a "complex-looking" website to display correctly in Netscape 3.0 -- visit www.amazon.com in it and you'll see what I mean.
Please note that Netscape 6/7 = their corresponding version of Mozilla and other Gecko-based browsers.
Oh, and in case anyone was wondering... versions of Konqueror below 2.0 (aka. the KFM browser) don't support GIF images, so I'd never support it explicitly for that reason.
I work with small to medium businesses for the most part - I'm happier that way. Most of my clients take NO thought about browser support whatever, and probably never heard of anything except Explorer and Netscape. I have to bring up the subject, if and when it's required. Mostly, this is all just techno-garble to them, and they trust me to handle it.
So a set of package prices like this would cause more trouble than I care to think about. What I do is listen to the client's business requirements and stay focused on delivering their message to their market. If that seems to require features that won't translate well cross-browser, then I bring up the subject, in very layman terms.
"Some browsers will need an alternative for the kind of thing you're describing. It will be about 1% to 2% of your audience. You need to decide if you're willing to spend extra to reach that audience."
I doubt that I have even one client who has heard of Konqueror, OmniWeb, etc. Most never heard of Mozilla or Opera.
So what I'm saying is that a developer is creating a complete package, designed to deliver a communication. We all tend to have our special areas of interest - graphic design, browser compatibility, accessibility, server side scripting or client side scripting, Flash development, HTML/CSS - on and on it goes.
But when you're developing a website, it's important to put together a coherent, complete package. Your business communications to the client, which includes package setups, and so on, can mis-direct the entire process because of your personal focus. And in the final product, that can result in a sub-par website - excellent in one area and giving short shrift to others.
So I would not recommend giving prospects a package breakdown based on browser support.
What always horrifies me is the number of proffessionally designed websites that simply aren't tested in anything other than IE. I realise that internet applications are a slightly different kettle of fish, but for the standard information/catalogue website, I'm afraid I don't understand why some people seem to find it so difficult. I'm sure most of you will agree that anyone who considers themself to be a "proffessional web designer" should know how to create cross-browser-compatible pages. I'm curious -- to anyone that's recently (or is still in) web design college (or whatever it's called), do they teach you about making your pages cross-browser compatible? I don't mean to sound rude, so I apologise to any teachers here that could take this the wrong way.
All of our sites work in text only browsers and all of them look good in the latest graphical browsers (including rollovers, layers, etc.). IMHO charging more for that kind of compatibiliy is a bit of a cop-out.
We only charge more for site design when DHTML is required as it's a PITA having to add all that code to the template - at least until IE supports CSS2/3.
As for what they're teaching in college these days - I have a friend who teaches and all the kids want to know about is Flash and WYSIWYG code editors like Firewords - not a clue about compatibility issues.
As for what they're teaching in college these days - I have a friend who teaches and all the kids want to know about is Flash and WYSIWYG code editors like Firewords - not a clue about compatibility issues.
That's the premise I operate under. If the client wants more compatability - especially if it's against my better judgement - then I tell them it will cost them more to accommodate their wishes.
If they want something that requires the lastest browser/plug-in then I charge more because I have to setup a work-around for other browsers (even if the clients never know about it).
I just can't till (in my dreams) I can charge extra for IE5/6 compatibility.
Most never heard of Mozilla or Opera.
I'm not a pro, but I do sometimes deal with people who are not exactly computer gurus and who describe the way they get to a website as
"I open the internet"
"I log onto the internet"
"I go to the site on Windows"
All of these mean phrases that they type or paste a url into Internet Explorer or, if they are really sophisticated, they click on a bookmarks. I know of people who have a list of their favorite sites on a sheet of paper that is taped to the computer. They have only the vaguest idea that Internet Explorer is not the same thing as Windows.
They are, however, familiar with Opera and generally prefer Verdi ;-)
Tom
They are, however, familiar with Opera and generally prefer Verdi ;-)
I generally prefer Puccini to Verdi and really like Tristan. Sam Barber's Susanna was riveting and of course Carmen is a classic. Russlan is a bit boring and Freichutz is hard to take.
If most of you don't know what I'm talking about that's OK. Some might recognize Carmen but not know who wrote it.
Outside the people that visit web/html/browser forums I contend that very few of the general public know about opera, Mozilla, etc. As the previous poster noted, most of the general, non-geek, public click on the big E.
That's why I find these browser bashing/comparitive threads pointless.
As for what they're teaching in college these days - I have a friend who teaches and all the kids want to know about is Flash and WYSIWYG code editors like Firewords - not a clue about compatibility issues.
I finished a computer studies degree just a year ago, the only web-based modules we were offered were delivered solely on WYSIWYG packages likw dreamweaver. When I asked "what about teaching proper code?" I got told it was unnecessary and behind the time to do so. Hence I resigned from the module one week in.
This was a computing honours degree course and they were telling me that I should use front page and dreamweaver to design a web page. When I sent an email to the head of school complaining and mentioning the issues of cross-browser compatability, usablity, accessability and page loading times the reply was......silence.
I have since found out that this is a common approach in the UK universities. I was lucky enough to get bored out of my brain during the first (GCSE level) summester and learnt HTML myself. Although in no way standards compliant back then it gave me enough code knowledge to carry on myself later.
Anyone out there reading this, if you want a web designer, please don't just pick the one with the degree, ask for examples of their own good code, hell get them to knock up a 10 minute page for you in the interview. We have too many crap designers around as it is.
Sounds reasonble to me, however most people would only ever have heard of IE, Netscape, Mozilla, Opera and possibly Firebird. Don't confuse them by quoting other more obscure browsers or they will run in the other direction and hire some kid with a degree (see above).
All I have to add is you should also think about supporting text-only browsers such as Lynx and screen-readers like Jaws. If you code to standards this should be almost automatic but at least you can explain the advantages of this to a customer for two effects.
1) It educates them and next time they are looking for a web designer they might just ask about it.
2) It markets you as someone who is more widely considering of design issues and thus makes you look good :).
Anyone out there reading this, if you want a web designer, please don't just pick the one with the degree, ask for examples of their own good code, hell get them to knock up a 10 minute page for you in the interview. We have too many crap designers around as it is.
I have to say, it didn't seem as though she'd chosen the most appropriate technologies to make the website she was telling me about. She'd wanted to make her website in HTML (and CSS), since she was very familar with it, and because her website consisted of static pages. That sounds sensible, but aparently her friend had persuaded her to do it all in ASP. Can someone please explain to me the benefits of using ASP for simple static information pages of text and pictures? It sounds like just using a technology "because it's there".
I'm probably younger than most people here, but as part of the GNVQ ICT course a while ago, we'd had to create websites about computer hardware and software. The teacher wanted us to either use Microsoft Word (-*cringes*-), or worse... PowerPoint! I asked if I could do it by hand in notepad, and his response was "well, we're not really on to that yet". I still did it in notepad anyway.
Meanwhile my best mate is still working in Marks and Spencers and trying to get into a web design job and nowhere wants him because he did "Software Engineering" and companies thin he is just a programmer when in fact he has a great knowledge of all web technologies, standards and browsers.
As for the ASP thing, surely it is a waste of time for static pages as the server will have to parse and construct it all instead of just feeding out the file as is. The only advantage could be if perhpad dynamic content is wanted in the future, that way page names could remain the same.
All web pages should be functional in all browsers (although admittedly they might not look the same...). Core content and usability feaures haven't really changed much over the years.
As for Flash, well, yeah, penetration for the latest version is under 70%, and then you have a large number of companies using firewalls that black Flash content even if the plugin is installed. And then you have 20% of people who are disabled and can't access it. So you're probably talking 40% at best!
